3 ms·

This paper completly misses the point of linguistics as a discipline that generative grammar operates in. We have known that it is possible to understand langu

This paper completly misses the point of linguistics as a discipline that generative grammar operates in. We have known that it is possible to understand language without innateness. That is what linguists do. If you look at how linguists know about innate features, the answer is almost always by first discovering them explicitly while analysing language data; not by opening a brain to see what is innately inside. [0] The point about innateness is that it takes generations of linguists to learn from a blank slate properties of language that children learn in just years. There are also numerous other arguments for innateness. From the way humans seem to spontaneously develop language in a language deprives environment, to the way language aquasition works being more consistent with other innate behaviours, to the pressence of weird properties that seem to be present across languages for no apparent logical reason. The only insight I see from LLM is the same insight we have seen throughout macine learning. It is not nessasary to understand something if you can throw enough compute at it. This is powerful, and it enables us to do a lot, but it should not be confused with understanding. [0] There are some instances leveraging MRI and other cognative research teqniques to get some insight into the inner workings of human language processing, but their role in developing current linguistics theory is thus far limited.

zvmaz 3y ago
Also, dogs and cats, and even our close relatives, primates, don't develop a capacity to language.
- azakai 3y ago
  Yes, and that's one of my favorite Chomsky points. I don't remember the exact phrasing, but something like: "Language is innate in humans because in every household practically all children learn it while none of the pets do."
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    They[1] do learn some of it, but a fraction so small it doesn't change the argument. [1]: at least the mamal pets, not goldfishes
    - bbor 3y ago
      That’s a hot take - they learn the meaning of some sounds, but I’d say that’s on a whole different order than human language. Many, many animals communicate concepts using sounds
      - littlestymaar 3y ago
        You shouldn't dismiss the abilities of our fellow mammals too quickly. Of course they are very far from equal to us, but there are several species of mammals that have showed non-trivial use of language, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that all mammals have at least very basic language building blocks in their brain, even if vestigial.
  - gizmo686 3y ago
    A similar insight: We teach children to read and write, but we don't need to teach them to listen and speak.
  - williamcotton 3y ago
    Well how large are the neural networks in both humans and cats? And haven’t we seen empirical evidence that some astonishing emergent behavior is exhibited by large artificial neural networks?
- sdenton4 3y ago
  That could be more a question of the sensorium than brain structure, though... And whales might say something similar about us, that humans have a very complex society despite being seemingly unable to learn to speak coherently.
- jjtheblunt 3y ago
  How is that known? I ask since they may understand far more words than (of course) they can pronounce.
bbor 3y ago
For a moment I was going to waste my afternoon arguing with people desperately predisposed to being the underdog in the fight against the Father of Linguistics, but you’ve said everything I ever could beautifully, so if this doesn’t help nothing will. Especially love the last paragraph, clarified that pattern for me. On a lighter note, I do expect “Modern Language Models Refute…” to be the new “All you need is…”! It’s just too provocative not to click on
- chgc5654 3y ago
  > For a moment I was going to waste my afternoon arguing with people desperately predisposed to being the underdog in the fight against the Big Mean Socialist This out-of-the-blue accusation sounds like a confession of your true motives in this conversation: You like the man's politics, so you feel compelled to defend him in an unrelated topic.
  - bbor 3y ago
    Eh not really, don’t love his politics. This happens to be something I feel strongly about and have been thinking about a lot. But apologies for the spicy tone, you’re right - I’ll edit that part out

zvmaz 3y ago

Also, dogs and cats, and even our close relatives, primates, don't develop a capacity to language.

azakai 3y ago
Yes, and that's one of my favorite Chomsky points. I don't remember the exact phrasing, but something like: "Language is innate in humans because in every household practically all children learn it while none of the pets do."
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  They[1] do learn some of it, but a fraction so small it doesn't change the argument. [1]: at least the mamal pets, not goldfishes
  - bbor 3y ago
    That’s a hot take - they learn the meaning of some sounds, but I’d say that’s on a whole different order than human language. Many, many animals communicate concepts using sounds
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      You shouldn't dismiss the abilities of our fellow mammals too quickly. Of course they are very far from equal to us, but there are several species of mammals that have showed non-trivial use of language, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that all mammals have at least very basic language building blocks in their brain, even if vestigial.
- gizmo686 3y ago
  A similar insight: We teach children to read and write, but we don't need to teach them to listen and speak.
- williamcotton 3y ago
  Well how large are the neural networks in both humans and cats? And haven’t we seen empirical evidence that some astonishing emergent behavior is exhibited by large artificial neural networks?
sdenton4 3y ago
That could be more a question of the sensorium than brain structure, though... And whales might say something similar about us, that humans have a very complex society despite being seemingly unable to learn to speak coherently.
jjtheblunt 3y ago
How is that known? I ask since they may understand far more words than (of course) they can pronounce.

bbor 3y ago

For a moment I was going to waste my afternoon arguing with people desperately predisposed to being the underdog in the fight against the Father of Linguistics, but you’ve said everything I ever could beautifully, so if this doesn’t help nothing will. Especially love the last paragraph, clarified that pattern for me. On a lighter note, I do expect “Modern Language Models Refute…” to be the new “All you need is…”! It’s just too provocative not to click on

chgc5654 3y ago
> For a moment I was going to waste my afternoon arguing with people desperately predisposed to being the underdog in the fight against the Big Mean Socialist This out-of-the-blue accusation sounds like a confession of your true motives in this conversation: You like the man's politics, so you feel compelled to defend him in an unrelated topic.
- bbor 3y ago
  Eh not really, don’t love his politics. This happens to be something I feel strongly about and have been thinking about a lot. But apologies for the spicy tone, you’re right - I’ll edit that part out